Talk:Lectern
Problem with bginfo Moved from talk:Angela Martine. Another "Background Information" section which makes false, irrelevant, and unacceptable references. Genuflecting before an altar is not limited to one denomination of Christianity. :Which is exactly why it says she may be Catholic. That and she was in a Church with a crucifix on the wall... --From Andoria with Love 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::A chapel is not a church. And what altar? -- 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Removed Moved from talk:Angela Martine. One interesting point about Martine's background was that she might be Catholic. During her aborted wedding in , she genuflected before the altar. This would be consistent with Star Trek s policy of showing diversity among cultures that were not necessarily popular with the mainstream, a description which Catholicism certainly fit in the 1960s. :1) Genefluction isn't unique to Catholicism 2) it wasn't a religious ceremony (as evidenced by Kirk presiding), so to interpret her brief kneeling as a religious act is on even more shaky ground 3) even if 1 and 2 weren't true, this would still be too speculative. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:09, December 10, 2016 (UTC) ::I've also removed this image that accompanied the above text: File:Martine-Tomlinson wedding.jpg. Not only was it an in-universe image accompanying the bginfo, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to Angela Martine herself. --Defiant (talk) 09:13, December 10, 2016 (UTC) :I see you've replaced it with a note based on what the script says, which is a much stronger approach. But can I request that you clarify it a bit more? The word "implies" still implies that it is something not outright stated stated but which the editor reads into the situation - basically it makes it read as if you're doing much the same thing as the old note, only now you're reading clues in the script rather then in the visual evidence. Knowing you I'm sure you have good reasons to note it, but I think the note would benefit from going into more detail as to exactly what the script says that makes for the implication. For example, from the current note I can't make out if the script outright says "the reason she geneflucts is because she has religious belief", or if it's more subtle still. Worse case maybe you should even include the lines. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:58, December 10, 2016 (UTC) ::The answer's on the Robert Tomlinson page, as it states, "In stage directions from the revised final draft script of "Balance of Terror", the fact Tomlinson remains standing while Martine kneels during their wedding was said to be done in accordance with 'his beliefs, " an implication that Angela Martine's decision to genuflect was likewise based on her beliefs. --Defiant (talk) 03:58, December 11, 2016 (UTC) Ok, I'll try to modify the note to make the situation more clear. Just so I'm understanding you clearly, the script doesn't mention any beliefs by Martine, right? Only that of her husband, therefore implying hers. Oh and another thing, your note talks about an "altar", which is interesting because while the room is called a chapel, Kirk is presiding and therefore it seems more like a secular ceremony, which means we've clasified the "altar" as a lectern. Are we to understand the script called it an altar? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:02, December 11, 2016 (UTC) ::Question 1: correct. Question 2: yeah, the script keeps erroneously referring to what's actually a lectern as an altar (in fact, it doesn't even mention "lectern" at all). Please note that the Memory Alpha standard for script info is to write it in the past tense, and the formatting standard for writing a hyphen is "–", instead of "-". --Defiant (talk) 14:21, December 11, 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I've been falling into my bad habit of editing MA when I can't sleep again. It's when I'm most productive, but to be honest quality sometimes suffers. (not to mention my argumentation becomes more long winded and pedantic :s) Anyway, if the script consistently calls it an altar, then I guess it must be a weird altar, even if it looks like a normal lectern. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:49, December 11, 2016 (UTC) ::Wrong; I totally and completely disagree with that conclusion. --Defiant (talk) 01:23, December 12, 2016 (UTC) You're going to have to explain that, to me it seems as clear as can be. (good thing though that I decided to wait before making edits in case you had more to say) -- Capricorn (talk) 01:57, December 12, 2016 (UTC) ::What's shown on-screen is definitely a lectern, not an altar. The on-screen evidence trumps whatever's written in the script. Hence, we call it a lectern. Enough said. If you wish to persist in this already overly long argument, I suggest you bring it up on either the altar or lectern talk page. --Defiant (talk) 10:46, December 12, 2016 (UTC) Through history and various religions, altars could take about every shape you can imagine, so the discontinuity between script and what we see isn't nearly as irreconcilable as you imagine. Among those in christian tradition it's also not unheard of to confuse altars and pulpits, which is what may have happened. Another thing I'm wondering if the term altar in the script doesn't refer to the very alter-like thing behind the lectern. But then I get the impression you feel you're done with this, which given that you're the one with a script is a problem for me. The thing though is that it's not up to you to dictate when you've won a discussion, so I have half a mind to take your suggestion and flip it: make the changes and invite you to to bring it up on altar or lectern if you disagree. But I fear that would only lead to some unproductive backlash (or maybe I'm a wimp) so instead I'll conclude there's a deadlock and let it rest unresolved. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:09, December 14, 2016 (UTC) ::It's not a matter of "winning" an argument, and I have no interest whatsoever in "dictating" when a discussion is "won". What's scripted varies entirely from what's on-screen. For instance, at the start of giving his speech, Kirk is scripted to approach the "altar". What he actually approaches, on screen, is the lectern. This conversation may persist, but I personally am done with it, as my own personal religious beliefs prohibit (and discourage) me from continuing with it. --Defiant (talk) 12:39, December 14, 2016 (UTC)